Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh vs Smt. Sundarbai on 13 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2327 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE PACHAM TEHSILAND DISTT SIHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. ROHIT BANSAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SUNDARBAI W/O LATE SHRI ARJUN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI
TEHSIL AND DISTT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAMAR SINGH S/O LT. SHRI ARJUN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI TAHSIL
AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMSEWAK S/O LT. SHRI ARJUN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI TAHSIL
AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MOHAR SINGH S/O LT. SHRI ARJUN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI TAHSIL
AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEJ SINGH S/O LT. SHRI ARJUN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI TAHSIL
AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHANKAR SINGH S/O LT. SHRI HARIRAM, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI TAHSIL
AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. JITENDRA MEENA S/O SHRI JASWANT SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE BALLAKHEDI
TAHSIL AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
PRADESH)
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 2/16/2024
5:24:14 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. FAIZ AHMED QURESHI - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 passed by
Additional Collector, Vidisha in Case No.11/Revision/2020-21, whereby
revision has been allowed, setting aside the order of SDO dated 13.03.2020,
condone the delay in filing in appeal, remanded the case to SDO to decide the
appeal on merit after giving opportunity to both party.
Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned
order of Collector does not have any reasoning in allowing the application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act. He further submits that there was complete
knowledge of order of Tehsildar but appeal was filed after a delay of 817 days.
In application itself, knowledge is shown to the appellant on 02.11.2018.
Thereafter, appeal was filed on 26.03.2019. Appellate Court was right in
dismissing the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act but Collector did
not give any reason or finding, as to why the application for condonation of
delay should be allowed.
Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this
Court passed in W.P.No.13266/2020 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Narendra Kumar
and others) on 25.02.2021.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the order of
Additional Collector opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that SDO erred in rejecting the application for
condonation of delay by the impugned order, thereagainst a revision was filed
by him before the Collector, which came to be transferred and decided by the
Additional Collector vide its order dated 25.01.2021. Additional Collector was
completely right in allowing the application by giving a reasoned order. No
illegality or irregularity has been shown in the impugned order.
From the facts, it appears that Tehsildar Circle 1/2 vide its order dated
30.12.2016 allowed the Naksha Batan under Section 70 of MPLRC ex-parte.
Order itself shows that it was passed ex-parte.
Aggrieved with the order of Tehsildar dated 30.12.2016, Smt. Sundarbai,
respondent herein filed a time barred appeal before SDO, Vidisha under Section
44 of MPLRC along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
alleging that she was not aware of the order because it was passed ex-parte. She
came to know about the order of Tehsildar when respondent/petitioner came to
spot alongwith halka Patwari on 02.11.2018 for getting demarcation of the
property. She applied for certified copies and on getting certified copies on
26.03.2019, she filed a time barred appeal, requesting to condone the delay in
filing of the appeal till 26.03.2019. Application for condonation of delay was
rejected by SDO and matter went into revision by Smt. Sundarbai before
Collector which came to be heard and decided by the Additional Collector in
case No.11/Revision/2020-21 titled as Smt. Sundarbai & others Vs. Rajendra
Singh & others. On 25.01.2021 Additional Collector allowed the revision and
remanded the matter to SDO to decide the appeal on its own merit after
providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties by holding that
order dated 30.12.2016 against which appeal was filed on 27.03.2019 was not in
the knowledge of appellant/revisionist and nothing was on record to show that
order was in the knowledge of revisionist. Thus, Additional Collector directed
the delay in filing of appeal to be condoned. Order of Additional Collector is
impugned in the present petition.
Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
Order of Tehsildar itself reveals that it was passed ex-parte and Smt.
Sundarbai was not present when the order was passed. There is nothing in the
order in respect of service upon her. Appeal was time barred by 2 years, 2
months and 27 days. Additional Collector has given a reasoned finding for
condoning the delay. He remanded the appeal to SDO for deciding on its own
merit. Learned counsel could not show any illegality or irregularity, legally or
otherwise in the impugned order warranting interference.
In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), appeal was filed after a delay of
30 years and by the passage of time, petitioner also got constructed the house
on the land in question. Thus the fact was different and this will not come ahead
to help the petitioner.
In view of the above, petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)
JUDGE
bj/-
